Up until last Summer and Fall, I hadn’t done much experimenting with different running shorts. Partly this was because I didn’t want to spend the money on something that I didn’t think could be improved upon that much, and partly because there just weren’t that many shorts that deviated from the basic short design with one zipper pocket and a basic material/liner. After meeting with some of the brands at Outdoor Retailer last year, they sent me a small selection of apparel to try out based on my preference for shorts with lots of storage and inner boxer liners. Below are the shorts I was able to try out. Disclaimer: All of the the apparel other than the inov-8 shorts were provided free of charge by the respective manufactures.

From Top Left to Bottom Right – inov-8 Race Elite 140 (my go to for last 2 years), Brooks Sherpa 2-in-1 7″, The North Face Better Than Naked Long Haul Short, Dynafit Enduro Dry Short, Dynafit React Dry 3/4 Tight.

inov-8 Race Elite 140 (now called Race Elite 6″) – 6″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 1 gel pocket, 1 zipper pocket, elastic waistband. $65 available from Wiggle.com in UK.

inov-8 Race Elite 140 Shorts

I’ll start with the inov-8 since I’ve used it extensively over the last 2 years. It was the first short I’d tried with an inner boxer brief (as opposed to just a regular brief), and for long mountain outings that is super nice. The liner is very thin, not hot like you would think, and like many other heavier boxer liners are. I’ve done ultras in these with no need for Body Glide, and ran them at Western States where they were wet most of the race and had no issues. Also, the waistband is thick and elastic so I can get it tight to hold my Simple bottle, wind jacket, gloves and other things I want to stick in there without them falling down. The biggest downfall is the lack of pockets. Only one gel pocket on the back right side, and a small zipper pocket in the center. Still one of the best shorts out there, just hard to find in the US for some reason. (Running Warehouse Europe has the 2, 6 and 8″ shorts)

One small gel pocket on back right and zipper pocket center back.

Brooks Sherpa 7″ 2-in-1 Short – 7″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 2 medium sized hip pockets, 1 back zipper pocket and 1 pocket on right thigh on liner, $64 and available at Running Warehouse

7 inches is about as long as I like for running.

I really enjoyed the Sherpa short. It has minimal, yet functional pockets, with plenty of storage for most runs, and the liner is very soft and comfortable without being too hot. It is also probably one of the better looking shorts out there that blend in a little more in the summer and don’t as loudly scream “Runner!” as some split road shorts do if you go get lunch after your run :). All in all, a great short for daily training and races, and probably the most versatile out of all the ones I tried as it works good on the road too.

Very comfortable inner brief liner and 1 gel pocket on right thigh.

The North Face Better Than Naked Long Haul Short – 7″ inseam, inner boxer liner, 2 medium back hip pockets, 1 zipper pocket, 5 pockets on the outer thigh of liner (3 smaller on right, 2 larger on left), $65 and available at Running Warehouse.

Longest fitting short to me even though they are supposed to be 7″ like the Brooks. Very light outer material with a thicker liner.

The Long Haul Short gets the nod for the most storage of all the shorts I tried. The outer pockets are very similar to the Sherpa short by Brooks, but it adds quite a bit of storage for smaller food items on the outer thigh of each side of the liner. This concept was new to me before these two shorts, and my take away is that it works decent for small items like gels, but not so much for anything larger because then the shorts don’t move very well and look weird too. The Long Haul Short is better suited for colder Fall/Spring weather due to a hotter and longer boxer liner, and I don’t prefer how long the liner is (also 7″ so it comes right to the end of short – they do make these shorts and 5” and 3.5” versions as well). I prefer the liner to be a few inches shorter than the short so it doesn’t show when running, and also it holds less heat too. All in all a great short to carry quite a bit of stuff in cooler weather.

Left side has 2 larger pockets, right has 3 small gel specific pockets.

Dynafit Enduro Dry Short – 3.5″ inseam, 2 Large hip pockets and 1 zipper pocket on short. $65 for short on the Dynafit website and at Backcountry.com.

Shorter, near split short style with a great, light but tough fabric.

The Dynafit Enduro Dry Short is probably the best designed split, roadie style short that caters to the mountain/trail runner that I’ve come across. I used to run regular New Balance or Nike road shorts all the time and always had trouble putting gear in them because they usually have very little or no pockets, and are made of light and cheaper materials. The Enduro short has the best pocket setup of any short I’ve tried, with two super large back hip pockets, and one zipper pocket in the center. You can fit a lot of stuff into these pockets – they would fit windjackets, gloves, hats, burritos, etc. and not just gels. The biggest issue with all of this is that there is no drawstring on them!?!?! Thankfully, I’ve been told by Dynafit that it will have a draw string in the 2016 version, and I would highly recommend waiting till then to pick them up if you are interested…I sure will be getting myself a pair with the drawstring as they are definitely the best mountain short I’ve tried. They don’t have a boxer liner, but would probably need to be 5″ inseam or longer to realistically incorporate one. Regardless, such a great short for summer mountain outings in minimalistic style.

Huge hip pockets of stretchy material. Such a nice design.

Dynafit React 3/4 Tight -3/4 tight has 2 small hip pockets, 1 zipper and large right thigh pocket. $85 for the 3/4 tight again from Dynafit’s site.

Great fabric on them.

The Dynafit React 3/4 tight is equally nice in design as the Enduro short. The fabric is thin, stretchy and comfortable. It is also a 3/4 tight that that works in a range of temps from 35-55 degrees and will be awesome in the rain. My other 3/4 that I have I’d probably only wear up to 45 degrees as it gets too hot above that. The pocket design is great as well, with 2 smaller gel pockets on the back hip area and 1 zipper pocket in the middle. The most unique feature is a very large pocket on the right thigh. A thigh pocket on a tight is a fantastic idea, and doesn’t come with the problems of the the thigh pockets on liner shorts like the Sherpa or Long Haul Shorts above. Very cool tight, but again no drawstring to help utilize all the storage?!?! Unfortunately the 3/4 tight is not continuing in the line so there will be no updated version with a drawstring. I’m hoping to make one for them; they are that good.

Huge thigh pocket. Why don’t more tights have this type of design? Fantastic idea.

I’d love to hear what shorts work best for you when you have to carry a fair bit of items. Let me know in the comments below!

The Mio Link and Scosche Rhythm+ share a lot of similarities. Both offer an alternative to the traditional chest strap heart rate monitor, both measure heart rate via sensors and LED lights that measure blood flow through the skin, both lack a screen, and both pair with other devices via Bluetooth Smart or ANT+. Pricing is also similar, with both devices selling for between $70-$80.

For me, the main thing that sets the Rhythm+ apart from the Link is the band used to attach it to your arm. The Mio Link is a wrist-based device – it has a watch-like plastic band that I found somewhat uncomfortable, particularly when cinched tightly. There is really no alternative with the Link other than attaching it to your wrist, and this has caused problems for some people as HR measurement requires a good, tight fit (those with bony wrists have reported dropouts and other problems).

In contrast, the Scosche Rhythm+ comes with two neoprene-like bands that allow for placement in a variety of places on the arm. On the product packaging Scosche shows the band on the forearm, but it can also be placed around the upper arm or on the wrist. I’ve actually worn mine on my wrist most of the time, right next to my Garmin Vivofit. The band is much more comfortable than that of the Link – since it secures via Velcro it’s easy to cinch up for a snug fit, and it’s nice not having a plastic band digging into your arm.

The Rhythm+ is pretty simple to operate. It charges via a USB dock (see photo above). When you’re ready to use it you simply press the Scosche logo on the device and it activates (an alternating blue/red light on top starts to blink). On my Vivofit (see photo below) I simply press the button until it says “Heart” and the device picks up automatically (the blinking light changes to red only while synced). On my Forerunner 620 I activate the heart rate monitor in the watch settings (Settings—>Sensors) and then it syncs with the device. It should automatically recognize it every time you turn it on after the initial sync.

I’ve been using the Rhythm+ for running with my Garmin 620 (on the opposite wrist), and though I have experienced occasional dropouts (see downward spikes in images below), they are rare and could be since I use a wrist placement rather than the recommended placement higher up on the forearm (could also be due to the devices being on opposite wrists). To be honest, one brief dropout over five miles isn’t a big deal, and I didn’t even notice that it happened until I looked at the plots in Garmin Connect later on. I’ve never actually noticed a signal dropout while running.

One thing to note is that the Scosche Rhythm+ will not transmit accurate heart rate variability data (not sensitive enough I guess – I’ve tried it with the SweetBeat app and the numbers are not correct). As a result, it does not provide accurate information to calculate things like recovery time on my Garmin 620. Not a big deal for me, but worth mentioning.

I’ve also been doing a bit of cycling on a recumbent bike this winter when the weather is bad enough to keep me inside, and on these occasions I use the Rhythm+ paired with my Vivofit. This combo also works great, though dropouts seem more common with the Vivofit than with my Forerunner 620. Again, a few momentary dropouts over the course of 45 minutes of cycling are really not a big deal to me since I mainly use it to gauge my effort in real time and have never actually noticed a dropout until looking at plots afterward.

Conclusions

If you’re looking to ditch your chest strap heart rate monitor and already have a device that syncs with ANT+ or Bluetooth Smart sensors, the Scosche Rhythm+ would be my recommendation over the Mio Link. Both are great little devices, but the flexibility offered by the strap options for the Rhythm+ make it a better choice in my experience. It can be worn on the wrist like the Mio, but also on the forearm or around the bicep (unless you are Arnold). I’ve been very impressed with mine – no plans to return to a chest strap ever again if I don’t have to.

The Scosche Rhythm+ is available for purchase at Amazon.com and Clever Training (Runblogger readers get 10% off select products at Clever Training with code RunBlogXJT). Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

The main drawbacks of the FR10 for me personally were that it lacked the ability to upload complex workouts to the watch, had limited data screen customization (only 2 fields per screen), had a short battery life in GPS mode (about 5 hours, so frequent charging was necessary), and lacked the ability to sync a heart rate monitor. But for most of my runs the FR10 was more than sufficient.

About a month ago Garmin released the Forerunner 15, which is essentially an evolution of the FR10 (from the outside it looks identical). The FR15 adds in the ability to sync a heart rate monitor, increases battery life to 8 hours in GPS tracking mode, and most impressively it adds in a step counter. The FR15 basically takes the guts of the Garmin Vivofit activity tracker (I posted my Garmin Vivofit review yesterday) and stuffs them into an entry-level GPS watch. The combo makes this a very intriguing device!

Before I start the review, let’s get the disclosure out of the way. The FR15 I review here was sent to me by my affiliate partner Clever Training (you can get 10% off most purchases at Clever Training by using the code RunBlogXJT – purchases support this site and allow me to write in-depth reviews like this one, thanks!). After writing this review I’ll pack it up and send it back to them. I’ll also point out that my day-to-day GPS watch is a Garmin Forerunner 620 (delivered by Santa Claus last Christmas), and I also regularly use a Garmin Vivofit that I bought myself.

On with the review! I’ve now been using the FR15 daily for a few weeks and given the similarity in most respects to the FR10, I’ve been able to gather my thoughts pretty quickly on this one. As is my practice with fitness electronics reviews, I’m going to organize the remainder of this review into a list of likes and dislikes.

Things I Like About the Garmin Forerunner 15

1. Solid GPS Tracking. One of the things that impressed me about the FR10 was how accurately it tracked my distance and pace for an entry-level device. In fact, I wore it in the VT City Marathon last May and it came closer to getting the distance right than the then top-of-the-line Garmin 610. The FR15 seems to do just as well in this regard. It has consistently recorded distances almost spot on with my Garmin 620 and iPhone (iSmoothRun app). And I actually prefer the real-time pace readout on the FR15 – it’s extremely stable, and reports pace in 5 second increments (e.g., 8:00/mile, 8:05/mile, 8:10/mile…) which I think makes things less jumpy. For basic pace and distance tracking on runs, the FR15 is great!

2. Activity/Step Tracking. This is the big draw for the FR15 over the FR10 for me. As a regular user of a Garmin Vivofit and a Garmin Forerunner 620, I find the idea of combining the two into a single device very appealing, if for no other reason than to open up some real estate on my wrists. With the FR15 I can have the watch/tracker on one wrist and the Mio Link on the other for heart rate. All of my bases are covered. With the 620, Vivofit, and Mio I start looking like a cyborg and find myself frequently removing the Mio. Now the 620 does not do activity tracking so I’m not out of the woods, but I wonder if it’s within the capability of the hardware to do so since it can track my cadence (step rate) on runs? The problem for Garmin is that adding in this functionality could prevent some Vivofit sales. Since this is a review of the FR15 though I’ll leave it at that.

In terms of activity tracking, the FR15 displays a step count directly below the time when the watch is not in GPS mode. Using the bottom left button you can switch to viewing your daily step goal, distance covered (a rough estimate based on your steps – more on this in my Vivofit review), calories burned, or the date. Initially I found the FR15 consistently recorded fewer steps over the course of the day compared to my Vivofit, and I had it on my dominant hand (both devices record “steps” while doing things like brushing teeth so step counts are not perfect). The FR15 counts were sometimes several thousand steps short of what the Vivofit recorded:

After a few days of use I connected the FR15 to my computer to upload data and it notified me that a firmware update was available. One of the fixes was apparently a tweak to the tracker algorithms, and since the update the daily step totals between the two devices have been much closer (though the Vivofit tends to usually count slightly more).

My take would be that if you have a FR15, you don’t really need a Vivofit unless you want sleep tracking capability (supposedly sleep tracking is coming to the FR15 in a future firmware update according to DC Rainmaker). If you don’t have either then other considerations come into play (see below).

3. Heart Rate Monitor Sync. This is the other big plus for the FR15 over the FR10. The Forerunner 15 can be purchased with or without a heart rate monitor – if you already have an ANT+ heart rate monitor you can save some cash (MSRP is $199 with the HRM, $169 without). I’ve been using the FR15 with a Mio Link wrist-mounted heart rate monitor and it has worked flawlessly. I initially had some trouble figuring out how to get the watch to communicate with the HRM, but after reading the manual (brilliant!) I realized that during initial pairing you have to put the watch right up against the active monitor (see pairing instructions image below). Once that initial pairing is made the watch will recognize the HRM the moment it is turned on. Heart rate data shows up as a third data screen during your workouts and displays heart rate and heart rate zone.

The FR15 will also sync with a foot pod if you have one, but I have not tested that since I rarely use a foot pod.

4. Size/Form Factor. The Forerunner 15 comes in two sizes – large and small. I have the large version, and compared to other GPS watches I have owned it is still a pretty sleek watch. It could easily be used as an all-day watch, unlike my old Garmin 205 which was like a brick on my wrist.

The FR15 is available in a lot of colors, so there are plenty of options to choose from for both the guys and the gals:

5. Menu Simplicity. I loved the menu system in the FR10, and it’s largely the same in the FR15. The FR15 has 4 buttons, and they are intuitive and super easy to use. On the top left is a backlight button. On the top right is a button that serves to initiate a workout and functions as the “enter key” in menus. Bottom left is a back button which also functions to change the data displayed below the time of day when not in GPS mode (steps, calories, distance, etc.), and bottom right is the button you use to pull up and scroll menus and data screens.

Menus include a History menu that allows you to view your data from each run, your daily step counts for the past week, and your records (fastest mile, 5K, 10K, Half-Marathon, and Marathon distances; also longest run).

There is a Run Options menu that lets you program run-walk intervals (this would be great for my beginner 5K group runners!), set a virtual pacer, and configure heart rate alerts, auto pause and data display screens. You can also choose to set auto-lap each mile or turn the bottom left button into a manual lap button.

The Settings menu lets you set an alarm, configure the activity tracker, set your language and distance unit preferences, and configure your user profile (age, gender, weight, height, max heart rate).

6. Battery Life. This is more something I like relative to the FR10 than something I like in general. The FR15 gets a little boost in battery life from 5 to 8 hours in GPS mode. Both watches will more than handle a marathon for me, and now the FR15 might get me through a 50K. But the bigger issue is that the longer battery life means I can go a few extra workouts between charges. More importantly, for an entry level watch that may see people through 5-hour plus marathons, the FR15 is a safer bet to last the full race than the FR10.

7. Garmin Connect Data Consolidation. I mentioned this in my Vivofit review as well – even though I’m not super crazy about Garmin Connect, it is nice to be able to upload and store all of my run data and daily step data in one place. Cuts down on the clutter in my digital life!

Things I Don’t Like About the FR15

1. Limited Data Fields. The FR15 limits you to two data screens, each of which displays two data fields (a third data screen appears when a heart rate monitor is synced). On the plus side, because there are only two fields, the text is large and easy to read.

There are 6 data field combos that can be shown on each screen: Time/Distance, Time/Pace, Time/Calories, Pace/Distance, Pace/Calories, Distance/Calories. You get to choose two of these via the Run Options—>Data Fields menu on the watch.

There is an additional level of customization for the Pace field. In the Run Options—>Pace/Speed menu you can configure the Pace field to show any of the following: Current Pace, Lap Pace, Average Pace, Speed, Lap Speed, Average Speed. You only get to choose one, so you can’t have one data screen show Current Pace and another show Average Pace. I mainly use Current Pace, and I have auto-lap enabled so after each mile it spits out my lap time. All of this is the same between the FR10 and FR15.

For the vast majority of my runs the lack of added fields isn’t a big deal. Most of the time pace and distance are sufficient. It’s only on runs where I’m doing something like an interval workout on the track where I like to have a lap screen that shows lap time, lap pace, lap distance, etc. That’s where a higher-end watch like the Garmin 620 with up to 4 configurable data fields per screen shines.

2. Can’t Create Workouts. Really the only two features that keep me from going to a basic watch like the FR15 are the limited data field options and the inability to create custom workouts. I understand that added features come with a higher-end watch, so this isn’t really a complaint. A lot of the other features of a watch like the FR620 are fun, but aren’t really essential to my daily needs (e.g., running dynamics, VO2max estimate, etc.).

3. Satellite Sync Speed. It’s not as fast as my 620 at locking satellites, but seems faster than my old 205. Not really a big deal.

Things About Which I Am Indifferent

1. No Wireless Sync. To upload data from the FR15 to your computer you must do so via a USB cord. I’d like to say that one of the things I like best about my Garmin 620 is the wireless data upload. In reality, my 620 has had intermittent luck at best with uploading run data via wifi. More often than not the watch can’t seem to recognize my home wifi network.

On the other hand, my Garmin Vivofit has no trouble uploading data wirelessly via ANT+ to my computer or Bluetooth to my phone. It’s very handy, especially for a device that has a battery that is supposed to last a year. The reality with devices like the FR15 and FR620 is that they have to be charged at regular intervals anyway, so uploading via USB cord really isn’t a big deal – I just do it whenever they need a charge.

So Which Device Should I Buy?

The big question with a device like the Garmin FR15 is whether you should choose it over a basic activity tracker like the Vivofit, or over a more expensive watch like the Garmin 220 or 620. Here’s my take.

If you only want activity tracking and have no interest in GPS…

Get the Garmin Vivofit. It does a great job tracking steps and the incredible battery life is a huge plus over any current GPS watch on the market. Plus, it does sleep tracking if you care about that (I personally do not, though sleep tracking is supposedly coming soon to the FR15).

You can read my Garmin Vivofit review here.

If you want basic GPS functionality and don’t care about activity tracking or heart rate monitoring…

Get a Garmin FR10. It does almost everything the FR15 does minus activity tracking and heart rate monitoring. However, it has a slightly shorter battery life, so if you are planning to run a marathon and it may take longer than 5 hours, the FR15 is a safer bet to get you through the race.

You can read my Garmin Forerunner 10 review here.

If you want activity tracking and might someday want GPS…

Get the Garmin FR15. It tracks steps as well as the Vivofit, and the GPS will fill the needs of the majority of runners. Plus, for $40 more than the FR10 you gain the possibility of heart rate monitor integration and a built in activity tracker ($70 more if you want the HRM included). Unless you really need lots of screen customization options and the ability to create complex workouts that can be uploaded to the watch you won’t need much more than what the FR15 can do. You will have to charge the device far more often than a Vivofit, but how often will depend on how frequently you use the GPS (the FR15 is spec’d at 5 weeks or so of battery life in non-GPS mode).

If you want extensively customizable data screens, workout configurations, and other bells and whistles…

Get the Garmin 220 or 620. I have the latter and probably don’t need the vast majority of features that it offers. I got it mainly so I could play with the running dynamics features, and though they are interesting they’re probably not going to benefit most people (not sure I know what to do with a lot of the data it provides!). Though I haven’t used it myself, I’d say the 220 is probably the better choice if your budget is tight and a basic GPS watch like the FR15 isn’t enough for you. I should have a review of the Garmin 620 written soon.

Purchasing Options

The Garmin Forerunner 15 is available for purchase at my affiliate partner Clever Training (as are the other devices mentioned above). Clever Training specializes in fitness electronics, and has agreed to provide a 10% off discount to Runblogger readers on most products that they carry – just enter the code RunBlogXJT at checkout. Purchases support this site and help me to write reviews like this one. Your support is very much appreciated!

In general I loved the Fitbit Ultra, but as a distance runner one of my biggest problems with the device was that although it captured my walking steps well, it did a poor job of counting steps while running (it would always undercount by a significant margin). After some experimentation I determined that this seemed to be related to its location on my waistband – running with it strapped to my wrist yielded far better results. Given this, I decided that my new fitness tracker had to be a wrist-mounted model, and thus the clip-style Fitbit One and Fitbit Zip were out as replacement options. I knew there would be more potential for measuring random movements as steps with a device on my wrist, and that it wouldn’t handle step counting well while pushing my son in a stroller or while mowing the lawn, but as a runner the tradeoff of more accurately capturing my steps on runs would be worth it.

I narrowed my options down to three: Fitbit Flex, Fitbit Force, or the Garmin Vivofit. I quickly eliminated the Flex due to the lack of a step/data display. I like to be able to see my numbers. The Fitbit Force was appealing since I was already in the Fitbit ecosystem, but it had just been recalled since the band had a tendency to cause a skin rash in some people. That left the Garmin Vivofit, which had just been released.

I bought the Garmin Vivofit within a few weeks of its release earlier this year, and have been using it continuously since. I’ve been using Garmin GPS watches for years, so I’m as tied into the Garmin Connect ecosystem as I was into Fitbit (probably moreso). As a result, the change was easy. Overall I have been very impressed, though the device does have a few quirks which I’ll outline below.

Things I Like About the Garmin Vivofit

1. The Screen. I love having a fitness tracker that has an easy-to-read screen located in plain view on my wrist. It gives me a constant reminder of how active I’ve been on a given day. And the Vivofit screen has a little red bar across the top that slowly grows during periods of inactivity – a good reminder to get off your butt and move around a bit to make the bar go away.

2. Battery Life. Unlike my old Fitbit, the Vivofit does not require regular recharging. Garmin claims the battery will last for a year before needing to be replaced (it uses easily replaceable coin cell batteries). I’ve been using mine daily since March and have not had to replace the battery yet – so far, so good!

3. Run Step Tracking. The Vivofit seems to do a much better job of tracking run steps than my old Fitbit Ultra. I think placement on the wrist is the key here and I suspect any wrist mounted device will outperform a waist clip, at least based on how I move. I’m now much more confident that the device gives a good relative estimate of my level of activity on a given day.

4. Clock. It’s a small thing, but I like that the Vivofit can display time-of-day and can thus double as a watch.

5. Heart Rate Monitor Integration. I love the fact that the Vivofit can sync with ANT+ heart rate monitors. I’ve been using mine with a Mio Link wrist mounted HRM (review coming soon!) and have loved the combo. I have them side-by-side on the same wrist (see photo below) and it lets me have a continuous readout of my heart rate on one wrist while my Garmin 620 displays pace/distance/time etc. on the other wrist (I’m a bit of a gadget junkie!).

My one issue with using a heart rate monitor with the Vivofit is that while it is synced it records an activity. Since I always record my runs with a GPS watch this leads to two versions of each activity being uploaded to Garmin Connect (and thus needing to delete the Vivofit version). Not sure if there is a way to turn of activity syncing with the Vivofit, I only want the daily step data to upload – if you know, I’d appreciate a tip in the comments! I suppose the easy answer would be to just sync the HRM with the watch instead of the Vivofit, but this lets me keep HR constantly visible on the Vivofit while using the GPS watch for other data fields (I’m difficult like that).

6. Wireless Sync. The Vivofit can sync either with a computer via a USB ANT+ receiver (using Garmin Express software) or with a smartphone via Bluetooth. I like the fact that I don’t have to take the device off my wrist to sync my data – with the Fitbit this would often lead to me forgetting to put it back on, sometimes for days at a time.

7. Clasp. In four months of use I think the Vivofit has only been pulled off my wrist twice, both times because the clasp got caught on something. The clasp stays put very well for me and no risk so far of the Vivofit falling into the toilet (unfortunately this seems to be a common complaint about clip-based fitness trackers that attach to a waistband!). I should also note that the Vivofit comes with two different sized bands to customize fit to your wrist. You can also buy replacement Vivofit wristbands in different colors. If you’re concerned about the Vivofit falling off, you can also buy clasp fasteners to help secure the connection.

8. Waterproof. I would never have taken my Fitbit Ultra into the shower or for a swim in the lake. No problem doing either with the Vivofit.

9. Garmin Connect Data Consolidation. Garmin has recently overhauled the Garmin Connect website. I initially wasn’t crazy about it, but it’s getting better (I think I still like the old site better). What I do like though is that since I have been a long time user of Garmin GPS watches, I now have all of my fitness data located in one place (daily steps + run data). The more I can simplify my digital life, the better! Garmin Connect offers lots of ways to visualize your data, but mostly I’m just interested in daily and monthly activity counts:

10. Garmin Connect App. The Garmin Connect app on my iPhone syncs with the Vivofit via Bluetooth. This is handy since it allows me to download step data if I’m away from my computer (and the USB ANT+ stick). You can also view your data in the app:

Things I Don’t Like About the Garmin Vivofit

1. Movement/Tracking Sensitivity. Whereas I felt like the Fitbit Ultra missed steps frequently, particularly on runs, I feel like the Vivofit is a bit overly sensitive to non-step movement. For example, I often get a hundred or more “steps” when I brush my teeth. I switched the Vivofit to my non-dominant left wrist to combat this. Conversely, a wrist mounted tracker performs less well if you are pushing a lawnmower or baby carriage since your wrist will not be moving as much. Ultimately, I don’t expect fitness trackers to be 100% perfect, and the value for me is more in providing a relative estimate of my activity from day to day than in providing an exact measure of my steps. I’ll take the improved run step tracking over the extraneous “step” measurements since a large proportion of my steps each week occur on runs (though I do spend a lot of time mowing my lawn each week…).

2. Distance Tracking Accuracy. I don’t consider this to be a fault of the Vivofit, but rather a problem with any accelerometer-based tracking device. Though the Vivofit will convert your step counts into a distance equivalent, it will not be nearly as accurate as a GPS device if you are interested in workout distances (hence why I use a GPS watch like my Garmin Forerunner 620 for runs), particularly for running. The main reason is that distance covered over a given period of time is a function of step rate and step length, and both change as a function of speed, incline, decline, etc. The distance estimate from a device like this should be considered just that – an estimate.

As an example of problems with distance measures recorded by a device like the Vivofit, I ran a 5 mile run last week (measured by Gmap Pedometer) up to the top of a ridge in Maine and back down. My GPS watch recorded almost exactly 5 miles, whereas the Vivofit recorded the same run as only 4.4 miles, probably since my stride length and cadence varied dramatically on the up vs. down portions. I pushed the pace hard on the donwhill as well and probably covered quite a bit of distance with each step. A device like the Vivofit will likely be more accurate for walking distance than running unless you do all of your miles at roughly the same pace on relatively flat ground (or on a treadmill at a consistent pace).

3. No Backlight. Really not a big deal, but a backlight would be a nice addition to a future model.

4. Stair Counting. I kind of liked that the Fitbit Ultra counted stairs climbed each day. The Vivofit does not do this, but honestly I can’t say that I miss the feature enough for it to really bother me. The only steps I tend to encounter each day are the flight up to my bedroom or the flight down to my basement fridge (location of my IPA stash).

Things About Which I Am Indifferent

1. Sleep Tracking. You can put the Vivofit into sleep mode by pressing and holding the button until the word “Sleep” appears on the screen. It will record your movements while you sleep. Personally, I almost never use this, but if it’s something you’re interested in the option is available. I can usually tell how well I slept the previous night by how many cups of coffee I need to get me going the next morning.

2. Daily Goal. The Vivofit adjusts your daily target for steps based on recent activity levels. This could be a good motivator to keep active and push your limits, but I honestly haven’t made much use of the step goal determined by the watch. This might change during the winter when I’m not actively training for a race and my daily step counts tend to be much lower.

Conclusion

I have been extremely happy with my Garmin Vivofit so far. It’s been on my wrist almost every day since March, and I’ve found it to be a big improvement over my old Fitbit Ultra (may it rest in peace, wherever it is…). I love the screen, battery life is excellent, and the ability to sync it with a heart rate monitor is a great feature for me as a runner. Being able to consolidate all of my fitness data on Garmin Connect has also been nice. I highly recommend the Vivofit!

Update –I have now posted a review of the Garmin Forerunner FR15. The FR15 is an entry-level GPS watch that does step counting just like the Vivofit. If you want a device that combines activity tracking, heart rate monitor sync, and GPS tracking the FR15 is definitely worth a look!

Purchasing Options

The Garmin Vivofit and associated accessories are available for purchase at Amazon.com. The Vivofit is also available at Clever Training (Clever Training offers a 10% off discount to Runblogger readers on select products using code RunBlogXJT).

Outside of the US, the Garmin Vivofit is available at Amazon UK and Amazon Canada.

Purchases made from retail sites linked above provide Runblogger with a small commission and help me to produce detailed reviews like this one. Your support is very much appreciated!

I’d also like to add that in my experience, cheap doesn’t necessarily equate to poor quality. I’d estimate that for 75% or more of my runs I wear thin C9 by Champion socks that I buy at Target (3 pairs for $9.49). I’ve been running in these regularly for years now, and I don’t think I’ve had to retire a single pair yet. No wearing down, no holes, no thinning. Amazing socks for the money (as a side note, other places to buy socks cheap are The Clymb (on-line) or a local TJ Maxx or Marshall’s store).

So with the above as a preface, I’m going to say that the socks I’m reviewing here are relatively expensive and for the most part unnecessary for most of my needs. But, there are times when I do find them useful, and I’ll try to explain the value of each.

Injinji

I’ve used Injinji socks for quite a long time. I started using them back when they were pretty much the only option for a sock that would work with Vibram Fivefingers – the socks have individual toe pockets so a thin pair would fit inside the toe shoes. But, as I started wearing them with other shoes I discovered that they did a great job preventing toe blisters, which used to be a big problem for me on long runs and in marathons. I think I’ve worn Injinjis in my last 3-4 marathon races, and I can’t recall the last time I got a blister on my toes from running (gaining a better understanding of proper shoe fit for my feet has helped with this as well).

Several months ago Injinji sent me a selection of new sock models to try out. Included were a few pairs of light weight and original weight Run 2.0 mini-crew socks (below left image), and a few pairs of Trail 2.0 Midweight socks (below right image; Disclosure: these were media samples and were provided free of charge).

All of the socks that Injinji sent feel thicker, and all seem better made than my older pairs of Injinji socks (I first reviewed them back in October, 2009!). I tend to prefer the lighter weight, no-show models myself, but the Trail socks have a nice thickness to them, kind of like a more traditional wool running sock. The drawback with Injinjis is that in winter, I actually find that running in socks with independent toe pockets leads to cold toes. It’s analogous to wearing gloves versus mittens – mittens keep my fingers much warmer because they allow skin-skin contact. Similarly, a traditional sock (even a thin one) without toe pockets keeps my toes warmer on cold, winter runs. As such, the thicker material of the original weight Run 2.0 and Trail 2.0 doesn’t do much for me except as a thicker friction barrier (could be good for hiking). I don’t tend to use them for running very often (thick socks also make for a tighter fit in shoes).

What I like most about the Injinij socks is that the toe pockets don’t squeeze my toes together as some tighter weave socks can. I’ve grown to hate almost any kind of constriction at my toes, be it caused by socks or shoes, and the Injinjis shine in this regard.

I should also point out that my wife is a big fan of Injinji socks, if for no other reason than the fact that she can wear her toe spacers over them inside her shoe (she uses Correct Toes when she runs since they seem to help with her neuroma pain).

So the big question for me is would I regularly pay $12-15 for a single pair of socks? Probably not. But I do like to have a few pairs of Injinjis in my sock drawer for those long runs and races where I do worry a bit about toe blisters.

For more information, visit Injinji.com. Injinji socks are available for purchase at Amazon.com.

DeFeet Socks

I was contacted last year by a rep from DeFeet asking if I’d be interested in trying out some of their socks. To be honest, I had never heard of the brand, and I rarely accept socks for review since there really isn’t a whole lot to write about a pair of socks (hence why this review is about half a year late!). I agreed to give them a try, and just as Injiniji did they sent me a selection of their running socks to try out (Disclosure: these socks were provided free of charge as media samples).

I’ve tried all of the socks that DeFeet sent. They’re all plenty comfortable, they seem well made, and there’s really nothing bad to say about them other than the fact that like most specialty socks they are pricey (over $10 a pair). Of the pairs that DeFeet sent, my favorites are the D-Evo Low Cuff socks (side note: I find their naming scheme a bit confusing). The D-Evo socks are made of CoolMax EcoMade Fiber, which is made from recycled material – kind of cool to have comfortable socks derived from plastic bottles. The D-Evos also come in a Merino wool version for a few dollars more. I’ve actually mostly used them for casual wear this winter since they have a nice thickness to them, but I’ve used them for running a bit as well.

The other socks they sent were in the DV8 line (images below). These are a bit thinner than the D-Evos, also made of CoolMax EcoMade Fiber. The DV8s come in a wide variety of colors and cuts (tabby to crew), and I prefer the thinner feel of the DV8s over the D-Evos for running.

For more information about DeFeet socks, head over to www.defeet.com. DeFeet socks are available for purchase at Amazon.com.

So there you have it, all of the socks mentioned here are solid options for running socks, but for me personally I find it tough to justify a big investment in expensive socks (some may disagree, which is fine). I find it worthwhile having a few pairs for specific uses, but for the most part I’ll stick to cheap and thin for most of my needs.

The items I’ll reviewing in this post are the Incendo Hoody, Tecto FL Hoody, Alpha SV Mitt, Accelero Tight, Cyclic Zip Neck, Accelero short, and the Poco Cap.  I’ve tested these items during short and long runs on my local mountains.  I’ve worn them primarily while running, but also for hiking, snowboarding, and snowshoeing.

Alpha SV Mitts

The Alpha SV mitts are designed for climbing and alpine use. They caught my attention for trail running because they utilize a “waterproof/breathable N80p-X GORE-TEX® fabric.”

When my hands get wet during long, cold, rainy runs, things can get pretty miserable. I’ve tried merino wool gloves, a wide range of typical performance running gloves, and overmitt shells. None of them really worked for very long in nasty weather.

Construction: The Alpha SVs are very well made. They have leather reinforcement areas on the palm and the back of the hand. The fleece liners are removable, and the design is seamless and perfectly tailored. Here’s how Arc’Teryx describes the liner: “The inner fleece liner is a hi-loft Polartec® Wind Pro® textile with high wind resistance, low stretch, exceptional warmth and breathability to keep working hands dry in cold environments.”  The liners go in and come out easily, and are attached below the wrist in the front and back with velcro. These liners were made to fit perfectly in the overmitts, and do so flawlessly. Take them out, and you notice how warm and well designed they are. As the mitts are designed to be used by climbers, they’re very well constructed, and able to take more of a beating than anything a runner would typically deliver.

Performance: I found the mitts very comfortable when running in rain and snow, from 20 degrees to 35 degrees.  Any warmer than 40 degrees and the mitts felt too hot with the liners in. Switching the liners out for a light merino wool glove worked well in that situation. The shells let the water bead off, and didn’t allow for an unpleasant soak through. At $225, they’re not cheap. But, having warm dry hands throughout a long wet run is something that doesn’t come easily.  If I was going to run an ultra through nasty weather, these babies would fit the bill perfectly.

Tecto FL Hoody

In order to keep my upper body dry on long, cold, wet runs, I tested the Tecto FL Hoody.

Construction: This jacket features Gore-Tex Active fabric, which is the lightest and most breathable Gore-Tex fabric you can find at this time. The jacket is designed for moving fast through wet weather. The Tecto FL is very light, weighing in at just over 10 ounces. To cut down on weight, the design team didn’t include pit vents or hand pockets. There’s one water sealed pocket on the upper left arm – just enough to carry a couple of cards and a key. The fit is trim, and the minimalist die-cut cuff tabs work beautifully to keep the elements out of the lower arm, while still offering adjustability.

If you visit the product page on the Arc’teryx site, they do a great job of describing how to keep the jacket (or any jacket of this sort) waterproofed. This is key, as many people spend more to get a waterproof yet breathable jacket, then neglect to care for it when the DWR finish begins to wear off.  Pay particular note to spots where there’s rubbing against a hydration vest, waist belt, or that sort of thing.  This jacket packs down nicely, and comes with a small stuff sack that, when stuffed, is about the size of a fist.

Performance: Given the generously sized hood, it’s clearly meant to accommodate a climbing or skiing helmet. This works well when hiking, but didn’t work out well for running. The extra material (that would fit snugly around a helmet) tends to bounce and cause a booming noise effect around the ears when running. That said, I tested the jacket because I was interested in the material, not so much the hood. Fortunately, the material works excellently in the rain. It’s surprisingly breathable – so much so that I wouldn’t even consider it a wind shell. But when it starts raining, the water rolls right off and continues to do so throughout the run. If worn with a Gore-Tex Active shelled hat, this would be an ideal combo.  This thing wears the way I’d want a running jacket to wear, and did a phenomenal job of keeping me dry during multi-hour long runs.

Incendo Hoody

Construction: Another jacket I tested was the Incendo Hoody. Unlike the more technical Tecto FL, this jacket is specifically designed for running, and as such has a hood made for the head vs. a helmet. It’s very light, and as such it’s very easy to pack it down and carry it in a hydration vest or pack. The jacket has a water resistant fabric that is perfect for short periods of rain, but doesn’t keep a runner dry for extended runs in a downpour.

Performance: The jacket felt nice and light. It breathed well, and was comfortable on windy, mildly rainy, or snowy days. Above 50 degrees, the jacket felt too warm to wear in light rain. The hood was comfortable, not too loud, but came down a little low over my forehead – interfering with my vision a bit. I think having a slightly rigid edge might help with this. It packs down nicely, and takes up very little room (and adds very little weight) in a hydration vest/pack.

Cyclic Zip Neck

Construction: For cold trail runs, I tried the Cyclic Zip Neck. This is a mid to heavy-weight running shirt, with a zipper coming down to the chest.  It offers thumb loops for a little extra warmth, but is comfortable to wear without using them.

My Impressions: I found this shirt to be very comfortable when paired with a jacket or vest when temperatures were in the 20s F, and by itself when the temps were in the 30s.  It managed perspiration well, and the material feels very durable.  A nice option for under a jacket like the Tecto FL, which was why I chose it.  No rubbing or other design concerns to report.

Accelero Tights

The running tights I tested were the Accelero Tights.  These feature a smooth finish fabric that makes them feel like satin.

Performance: These are, hands down, the most comfortable running tights I have ever owned. Some of my other running tights actually catch the hair on my legs from time to time and create a bit of friction. The Acceleros go on smooth and run even smoother. I find myself wanting to wear them even when I’d ordinarily go for a pair of shorts. They’re the perfect cool weather tight in my opinion. I like the integrated key pocket, and the mesh paneling on the back of the leg, the flat-locked seams and the stretchy feel. They felt great up to about 50 degrees, at which point they were a bit warm.

Accelero Shorts

Many of my friends like running tights for winter running, but prefer to wear shorts on top (read more on the great shorts over tights debate here).  For this reason, I tried out the Accelero shorts.  These are lightweight and breathable, medium to long in length, and have a DWR coating.  The DWR coating is nice, especially in the winter, as it helps to repel some of the rain, allowing the upper leg to stay drier longer. There’s also a side stash pocket with a zipper – a nice touch for a key and driver’s license.

Performance: These are very comfortable and don’t add much at all to the overall weight. There’s no binding or restrictive feeling when running.  I do sometimes find that I catch my thumb on the side pockets when running, especially on the flats and uphills sections. That said, the pockets were handy for stashing some running gloves in cool weather.

Poco Cap

I have been looking for a lightweight, packable hat. Accordingly, the Poco Cap appealed. It scrunches down to about half the size of my fist, yet maintains its shape nicely when unfurled. A breathable cap for sure, but the tight mesh weave actually gives it a warmer feel than would appear.

Performance: I find the Poco cap very comfortable, and prefer this hat on cool days without steady rain.  It offers up a bit of that city retro styling, which is new for me on the trail. I’ve been caught wearing this to the coffee shop after the run. Too comfortable to take off it seems.

Where to purchase: All of the gear in this review can be purchased at the Arc’Teryx website, at REI.com, or at Amazon.com. Purchases made via these links help keep reviews like this coming, thank you for your support!

A perfect example of where swapping insoles saved a shoe for me was the Newton Energy. The included insole was too thick under the heel, and my heel would not lock down properly as a result. The insole was also too soft – overkill in a shoe with an already soft midsole. Swapping out the factory insole for a thin, light alternative turned the Energy from a shoe I’d hesitate to run much in to one of my favorite shoes of 2013.

As a shoe reviewer, swapping insoles is easy for me since I have a bunch to choose from. However, I’ve been asked a number of times about where to buy a thin, flat insole to use for this purpose, and it has been surprisingly difficult to find good options. Most replacement insoles for sale are heavily structured with thick cushioning and pronounced arch support – not ideal when the goal might actually be to increase space inside a shoe. Running on a bare footbed with the insole removed is an option, but the footbed can sometimes be rough or have exposed stitching.

After a bit of digging around, and a trial offer from an insole manufacturer, I’ve come up with a few options that are decent.

Inov-8 Replacement Insoles

Inov-8 sells insoles that are completely flat, firm, and have no arch support (the insole does curl up a bit on each side, but that is to assist with placement in the shoe I think). The insoles come in two thicknesses: 3mm and 6mm. I purchase pairs of both and measure the 3mm version to be 3mm in the forefoot, 4mm in the heel. The 6mm seems to be uniform thickness at heel and forefoot. For comparative purposes, the included insole in the Saucony Mirage 4 measures about 5.5mm heel, 4mm forefoot, and that in the Brooks PureFlow 3 is a uniform 5.5mm from front to back.

The 3mm insole appears very similar to the insole in the popular Inov-8 F-Lite 195 shoe (gray insole in photo below). Shape is also similar enough to the Saucony Mirage and Brooks PureFlow insoles that they swap into those shoes without a problem.

Left-to-Right: Inov-8 3mm Footbed, Inov-8 F-Lite 195 insole, Saucony Mirage 4 insole, Brooks PureFlow 3 insole, Inov-8 6mm Footbed

Top-to-Bottom: Inov-8 3mm Footbed, Inov-8 6mm Footbed, Saucony Mirage 4 insole, Brooks PureFlow 3 insole

The Inov-8 insoles are available for $10 at Zappos in the US. I’ve had a hard time tracking them down outside the US. Amazon UK has them (seems Amazon US does not), so you might check the Amazon shop for your country.

Ortholite Fusion Insole

If you’re looking for a relatively thin, flat insole that has a bit more cush, the Ortholite Fusion might be worth a shot (Disclosure: Ortholite sent me a free pair to try out). Ortholite makes insoles for a lot of shoes on the market, you may even have a pair yourself. It’s a much softer insole than the Inov-8 models – almost has a memory-foam like feel to it. I measure the Fusion between 4.5-5.0 mm at both the heel and forefoot (hard to get it exact since it’s really soft). In the image below they look a bit thicker than the Inov-8 6mm insole, but I think they thicken a bit along the margins where I trimmed them.

Unlike the Inov-8 footbeds, the Ortholites have a bit of soft arch support built in, but it’s not terribly obtrusive given how soft and flexible they are.

Left-to-Right: Inov-8 6mm Footbed, Inov-8 3mm Footbed, Ortholite Fusion Insole

Top-to-Bottom: Inov-8 3mm Footbed, Inov-8 6mm Footbed, Ortholite Fusion Insole

The Ortholite insoles do seem to have a bit more girth, and they take up a bit more space inside a shoe, but if you have a shoe that runs like a brick with the included insole they may make things a bit more runable. You also have to cut them to fit your shoes so you can remove as much material as necessary to squeeze them in. I simply used an existing insole as a template and traced around it, then cut the margins off to make the Ortholite the same size and shape.

The Ortholite Fusion insoles are available in the US for $20 per pair at Amazon via Ortholite. I’m not sure why they’ve opted to sell this way, but you have to select a size on Amazon, then click on where it says “Available from these sellers” to purchase direct from Ortholite.

Other Options

Merrell sells an insole that comes in 3 thicknesses: 7mm, 5mm, 2mm. I have not tried them myself, but seems like it might be another decent option.

I’ve been trying to get Skechers to sell their insoles separate from their shoes – I swap Skechers insoles around frequently. Some people have had bunching issues with the thinner Skechers insoles, but has not been a problem for me.

If you have any other suggestions, please share in the comments!

I get a lot of requests like this and often decline them because I find it hard to review clothing. It fits or it doesn’t. It’s comfortable or it’s not. There’s not much more to say. I told Dave that I couldn’t promise a formal review, but he indicated he wanted to send me something anyway, so I figured what the heck, why not?

I had heard of the brand Janji, and was vaguely aware of their clothing line, but I’d never really dug in and checked them out as a company. I’m glad that I did!

A pair of shorts from Janji arrived a few days ago, and my wife’s first response when she saw them was “those are way more colorful than anything you wear.” She was right. My taste in running shorts is pretty bland, and a pair in bright blue, red and white with a logo from the Haitian flag was a bit of a departure from my usual attire. But, I’m not averse to colorful shoes or shirts, so why the bias against a bit of color in my shorts? They actually did look kinda nice:

I tried them on, and the fit is to my liking. Not too baggy, not too long (mid-thigh). I’m a size 34-35 waist in most pants and I wouldn’t go any smaller than the large they sent me. Comfort was good, and no strange chafe over 7 miles running later that afternoon (they were under a pair of long pants, to cold for shorts only right now!). Will I continue to wear them? Yes. But a review isn’t really what this post is for.

After getting the shorts I decided to poke around on the Janji website a bit, and came away impressed by what I saw. They are a company with a mission to provide food and water to those in need. They donate a portion of each sale (25% of gross margins according to the FAQs) to partner organizations in various countries who provide essential services. As an example, buying a pair of the Haiti running shorts provides funds for 8 packets of nutritional medicine to a malnourished child in Haiti. Similar programs are in place with organizations in Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Peru, and the USA (the company is based in Boston and they donate a portion of profits from sales of their logo branded apparel to the Greater Boston Food Bank).

As one who is averse to spending a ton of money on running apparel, this is a company that is doing something good with the profits that they make. Their prices are by no means the cheapest out there, but I’m impressed enough by the company mission that I just bought a Janji shirt. I encourage you to check them out!

For more info, head over to the Janji website or watch the interview below with Janji co-founder Dave Spandorfer:

In the past I’ve used YakTrax Pro cleats in cases where a bit of extra traction is needed. These are the standard YakTrax with the metal coils underfoot. They’ve always worked well, but the consistent complaint I hear about them is that the rubber bands inside the coils are prone to snapping, which renders them useless. I don’t use mine except when there is a layer of snow on the ground, so they don’t come out often, and never on bare asphalt. As such, I have never broken a pair, but I can see how durability would be a concern.

A few weeks ago YakTrax contacted me about trying their YakTrax Run cleats (Disclosure: Yaktrax provided the product reviewed here free of charge as a media sample). We’ve had a few decent storms so far this winter, so I’ve now taken them out a few times and feel comfortable commenting on their performance.

The big difference between the YakTrax Pro and YakTrax Run is that on the latter the coils under the forefoot are replaced by two studded rubber and plastic plates. The studs are made of carbide steel and the plates they are attached to are removable – apparently the stud plates can be purchased independently for replacement if needed (they seem to be hard to find, Amazon is out of stock). The studs are short enough that they don’t feel uncomfortable when you hit a patch of bare asphalt (feels kind of like running in a Newton shoe), and long enough that they dig in well on bare ice. I tend to load more under my midfoot to forefoot, and I found traction on ice and plowed (yet still snow covered) road to be very good.

The heel of the YakTrax Run retains the familiar coils from other models, and I find these do a better job in deeper snow. A good portion of my run today was on sidewalks covered by about 4-5 inches of light, fresh powder. Once packed down the forefoot studs aren’t deep enough to help much, so I found myself aiming more for my heel to provide traction. It’s tough to get good traction on fresh powder over ice, and I managed to not fall over the course of 3.5 miles. I did slip a few times, and if deep, fresh powder is a regular condition for you there might be better options out there (have not tried them myself, but I’ve heard good things about the Kahtoola Microspikes for when more extreme traction is needed).

It’s hard to comment on durability as I’ve only used these twice so far (I typically only use Yaktrax a handful of times each winter when storms hit), but in a quick perusal of reviews on Amazon I did not see a large number of complaints about them breaking (there were a few, maybe 2-3 out of 24 reviews). My tactic when encountering a short stretch of bare asphalt is to focus on a forefoot landing and avoid direct contact on the coils, hopefully this will keep them in good shape (the ability to do this is an advantage of the Run model over the YakTrax Pro). I would assume that if you have a pair and they break, YakTrax will replace them under warranty if you contact them within 90 days (should cover a winter of use – they are clear to say that these are not to be used on bare asphalt or concrete). I’d guess most retailers would also exchange a pair that breaks prematurely (Zappos carries them and they are typically great with returns).

Overall I found that the YakTrax Run did a pretty good job for the conditions I encounter on roads and sidewalks during or after a snowstorm. They are great on icy surfaces and snow-covered, plowed road, and decent in fresh snow as long as it’s not too deep. My runs are not suited to a spikier traction device so the Kahtoola Microspikes are not something I’d really need, but for occasional traction needs encountered by a road runner in winter they function well.

For do-it-your-selfers, you could also try screwing your shoes (get your head out of the gutter!) – my buddy Sam recently did this with a pair of Hokas and some Ice Spikes, and I’ve done it with La Sportiva Hobnails. It’s also possible to just use some sheet metal screws from a hardware store – minimallyshoddy recently wrote about screwing his Skoras, that’s a risky proposition!

Where to buy – YakTrax Run cleats are available for purchase at Amazon.com and at Zappos.

Note From Pete: This is a guest review by Tyler Mathews. Tyler is a runner from Austin, TX, and a fellow member of Team Wicked Bonkproof. He is currently training for his first marathon, and is logging 70+ miles per week. To learn more about Tyler, check out his blog Running Toward Dreams. 

I wear a lot of running shoes. Some of them are considered more minimal, some more traditional, and I believe that using varying shoe types is critical to my training. In the same way that your body needs recovery days between hard workouts, I believe that my feet, legs, and core need a recovery day on days between runs in more minimal shoes. This is why I continue to use more traditional style shoes in my training – the Saucony Ride 6 would fit in this category.

I received the new Ride 6 after having done many miles in the earlier Ride 5 (Disclosure: these shoes were review samples provided free of charge by Runningshoes.com). The first thing I noticed was the upgraded aesthetics on this model. The shoe is sleek, shiny, and has a great colorway which I don’t find myself having to apologize for, as I did with the Ride 5 (got my 5’s in an ugly colorway on clearance).

The profile of the shoe is largely unchanged from the previous version. The outsole, though a bit different in construction, even maintained the mini triangle design. The upper mesh appears to be more breathable on the newer model, which may reduce its durability as the shoe gets older.

Saucony Ride 6

The Ride 6 is a shoe that has many of the properties you’ll find in a traditional lightweight neutral trainer. It weighs in at 9.6 oz in men’s size 9, with an 8mm drop (28mm heel, 20mm forefoot). Saucony differs from a lot of other manufacturers in having moved all of their traditional shoes to 8mm drop (most traditional trainers are 10-12mm drop), so keep that in mind if you are considering this shoe. It has almost no flexibility in the forefoot, very little torsional flexibilty in the midfoot (it’s not easy to twist the forefoot relative to the heel), and a lot of heel cushioning. I did notice that the cushion on the outer edge of the heel seemed to be much more solid than that of the Ride 5.

This shoe was clearly designed to be a high mileage trainer, as the outsole has very little exposed foam and is mostly covered by fairly thick rubber, something that is quite contrary to a shoe like the Saucony Kinvara. This has the added benefit of increased durability, but may cause the shoe to feel a bit stiff at first, as rubber takes longer to break in than foam.

Saucoiny Ride 5 (left) vs. Ride 6 (right) Outsole Comparison

I first took these shoes out for a Friday morning easy run and felt no foreign sensations when slipping them on. They didn’t feel overly different from the Ride 5, no dramatic changes in fit, motion, or cushion. This might sound boring, but when you put in between 70 and 80 miles a week and are 2 months out from your first marathon, you tend to look for a certain level of continuity, a shoe to welcome you home with a hot cup of coffee and some oatmeal chocolate chip cookies. Can you tell it’s almost Christmas?

I did feel the normal tingly numbness in my forefoot, something that I’ve learned to be unconcerned about in a new pair of shoes. I get these tinglies every time I put on a new shoe, between Skechers, Saucony, Brooks, Adidas, whatever. I don’t know why it happens, but it goes away after I put a few miles in.

Now this next bit is to work on the feels of you minimalist types who think that traditional shoes kill your form. They don’t. Bad form kills your form, and you can run with good form in a more traditional style training shoe. While wearing these Ride 6s I still managed to land around my midfoot and my form felt smooth. I had no premature heel contact which would cause any rolling, and I also didn’t feel overly coddled. My feet felt cushioned and comfortable. Something I’ve noticed lately in a more minimal shoe is that I have become somewhat susceptible to some minor tweaks from the extra flexibility which occasionally causes some discomfort in different areas of my foot. The Saucony Ride 6 helped me to recover from those by keeping my foot in a solid position without risk of weird twists and turns.

I took these shoes out for an 18 mile long run yesterday, and followed that up with a 7 mile run with some middle school kids (see Marathon High). I had expected to feel some soreness in my feet and legs after 25 miles and over 3 hours on the road, but I felt pleasantly fresh, beyond just feeling zapped from all the calories burnt. These are definitely some shoes that I will continue to go to for these easier, longer, slower miles.

Pros:
Stable shoe that can protect a bum foot
Modest heel
Breathable upper
Soft and cushioned for high mileage training
Lighter than most traditional trainers

Cons:
Will not appease die-hard minimalist runners
Slightly heavier than most of my trainers (9.6oz)
Not much ground feel

Conclusion:
These trainers are an excellent choice for people who are looking for a traditional, high mileage, neutral trainer without too much motion control and a modest heel. When I just want to run some miles without thinking too much about my footwear, these will be one of my go-to pairs.

The Saucony Ride 6 is available for purchase at Runningshoes.com.

It pains me to write what I’m about to write, but sometimes you have to be honest and tell a good friend that they are headed in the wrong direction. So, Mr. Kinvara, I apologize for being critical. I know we’ve been through a lot together, but we need some time apart until you get things sorted out.

This post was prompted by the following tweet that I received earlier today:

@Runblogger have run in Kinvaras last 4 yrs…having issues at end of marathon with feet killing me…more cushion? any suggestions?

— DMT (@dougmt) November 3, 2013

I responded with this:

@dougmt Kinvara 4 causing the trouble or earlier model? Could be width and not cushion.

— Pete L. (@Runblogger) November 3, 2013

Turns out it was indeed the K4, and @dougmt indicated he’d not had similar problems with the Kinvara 3. My suspicion is that the issue was not cushioning, but squeezing from the sides due to the tight forefoot fit of the Kinvara 4. My wife has this issue with her neuroma – narrow shoes squeeze her foot and can cause numbness and tingling.

The Twitter exchange reminded me that I’d never written a review of the Saucony Kinvara 4, and got me thinking about the shoe. My delay in reviewing them is simply because I have not run in them very much. And my reason for not running in them very much is that they are in my opinion a step back for the Kinvara line.

I have a long history with the Saucony Kinvara. The Kinvara 1 was one of my favorite shoes ever, and I ran two marathons in them, including my BQ race back in 2010. The Kinvara 2 was just an incremental upper update, so pretty much the same shoe. Sacuony tinkered with the sole a bit for the Kinvara 3, adding a bit of rubber in a few spots to add durability, and the upper was once again reworked. I really like the upper of the Kinvara 3 – in my opinion it felt a tad roomier in the forefoot than previous models and let my toes move around more freely.

Saucony Kinvara 4 – that material on the forefoot does not stretch!

I wore a size 10 in each of Kinvaras 1-3 with no major complaints or issues. None were particularly roomy shoes, but fit was ok on me, and I found the Kinvara 3 to be most comfortable of the three iterations. I assumed the Kinvara 4 would be the same in terms of sizing, but after trying on my usual size 10 it was clear that something was different. The forefoot was tight and the upper had very little give – my toes felt squished together. I then tried a 10.5, and while it felt better, the shoe still felt like a toe scruncher. I ran in them a few times and the sole felt like a typical Kinvara, if a tad firmer due to the addition of their PowerGrid foam, but the comfort factor of the upper was a huge problem. The forefoot still felt tight and restrictive, and I can’t stand wearing a shoe that does not allow my toes freedom of movement. As such, I only ran in them a few times and they wound up sitting unused on my shoe rack.

I dug out my pairs of the Kinvara 3 and 4 earlier today and tried them on, one version on each foot. Sure enough, the Kivara 3 in size 10 feels roomier and less constrictive than the Kinvara 4 in size 10.5. The fit of the Kinvara 4 is simply too tight up front for me, and it’s a shoe that I can’t run comfortably in. I really dislike the material that Saucony used to build the upper, it’s reminiscent of the original Nike Lunaracer which also had very little give.

My other big problem with the Kinvara 4 upper is that I anticipate durability problems. The upper is made from a plasticy synthetic mesh the just screams “tear me!” In perusing the reviews on Amazon (since I haven’t run in them more than 10 miles myself) it appears a number of people have complained about forefoot tearing, and in this great video review by Ginger Runner he discusses this issue as well:

My take is that the Kinvara 4 is a step back for Saucony, and unless you have narrowish feet or don’t mind a lack of toe freedom they aren’t going to be a great choice. And durability is a potential issue for the forefoot upper.

It’s a shame to see one of my favorite shoes suffer a setback like this. Even worse, I’ve heard that the Kinvara 5 is going to be quite different, more trainery, and frankly that scares me. The Kinvara is basically what I think a shoe should be – simple, lightweight, and relatively inexpensive compared to other shoes on the market. The progressive addition of technology tends to ruin shoes in my book – fix the upper and keep the Kinvara simple Saucony!

My advice if you are looking for a Kinvara is to get a pair of the 3’s or wait until they update to #5 and hope that it doesn’t change too much from the winning formula of earlier versions. It looks like Shoes.com has a bunch of Kinvara 3’s still in stock for $90, with an additional 25% off with code 25sale (total comes out to $67.50). You can also still find a bunch of the Kinvara 3 in stock for $75 at Saucony.com.

-John Schrup in his spot-on review of the New Balance 1400 v2

The New Balance MR1400 is a shoe that I’ve been long tempted by, but have resisted trying due to its relatively high heel-forefoot drop (9mm). My general experience is that most shoes over about 8mm drop don’t work well with my stride since I tend to be a midfoot to very mild heel striker. The higher heel can get in the way, and often catches the ground prematurely as I make contact. I had this experience recently with the 10mm drop Mizuno Sayonara – it’s a shoe that a lot of people seem to love, but it just did not work well for me and I gave up on it after a few runs (my friend Brad reviewed the Sayonara for me here).

I finally broke down a few weeks ago when the New Balance MR1400 v2 came out (the women’s version is the WR1400 v2). I had some credit at Running Warehouse from a previous return and the shoe ticked all of my boxes with the exception of the higher-than-preferred drop (note: this was a personal purchase, not a media sample). It also didn’t help that some of my shoe geek friends who share my preferences have been drooling over the 1400v2. I’m glad I took a chance since this is one of the best shoes I’ve run in so far this year!

The 1400 is basically a racing flat with a bit of additional soft cushion under the heel. It’s super lightweight (6.4 oz in size 9) and simple in its construction, both of which are features I like in a running shoe. It also costs under $100, which is a huge plus these days.

When I first put the 1400’s on my feet my impression was that the sole was super cushy, particularly under the heel (I like a soft sole). The feel under the heel was somewhat reminiscent of the Newton Energy, which is another of my favorite shoes released this year. I was a bit wary of the heel lift, but it didn’t feel very prominent when I put the shoes on, perhaps because the soft heel allows the foot to sink in a bit more than in a firmer shoe like the Mizuno Sayonara.

A run would be the true test, and the 1400 didn’t disappoint. I’m not sure exactly why, but these shoes don’t feel like they are 9mm drop, even though my own caliper measurements agree with the 24mm heel, 15mm forefoot dimensions reported by Running Warehouse. For some reason this shoe stays out of the way from my stride in a way that the Sayonara did not. Like all perfect footwear matches, it disappears on my feet.

While the heel of the 1400 feels soft while walking, the shoe feels firmer while running since I tend to load from midfoot to forefoot (see my stride video in the shoe below). It’s a responsive shoe that I could easily use from the 5K all the way to the marathon. Though I’ve run a max of only about 7-8 miles in a single run in them, I would have no hesitation running in them for much longer distances (I’m not marathon training right now so no double-digit runs on my schedule). In fact, if I had a marathon on my schedule soon the shoe decision would probably come down to the 1400v2 or the Newton Energy.

As John Schrup so elqoquently puts it in the opening paragraph of this review, the beauty of the NB 1400v2 is its simplicity. The sole is simply a full-contact wedge of foam, and it has decent outsole coverage – plenty of rubber to provide durability. I’ve put my typical 30-40 pre-review miles on these shoes and no major signs of wear to the sole. There does appear to be a plastic shank/plate in the region of the midfoot to add stiffness to the shoe (you can see it through the diamond-shaped hole under the midfoot), and I think this contributes to its responsiveness.

The upper of the 1400v2 is a nice, breathable mesh with extensive welded overlays. Again pretty simply but it does the job of securing the foot down quite well. It’s composed of a plasticy kind of mesh that worries me with regard to forefoot tearing with long-term use, but I see no signs of an issue so far (unlike the NB 730 v2, which started to develop small forefoot tears with similar mileage on them). I think there are enough overlays to prevent any major blowouts.

One issue with the upper of the 1400v2 is that internally it’s very rough, almost sandpapery rough. This is not a shoe for sockless running, I didn’t even try it as I would guarantee some serious abrasion and blistering. Despite this, I have had no issues with hotspots or blisters while wearing thin socks.

In terms of fit, I opted for a 10.5 instead of my usual 10 to allow a bit of room up front since this shoe is not on the roomy Minimus last. I find the fit to be just right – not super roomy, and not tight. I feel no constriction at all, it just fits and stays out of the way. Perfect for a performance shoe.

The insole included with the shoe is thin and flat, and arch support is not obtrusive. The ankle cuff is nicely padded, and there is no real heel counter (though the New Balance logo on the back of the shoe is stiff and keeps the back of the heel from collapsing).

Summary

Rather than dwelling on additional details, I’ll simply say that this shoe works, and it works very well in a lot of situations. I’ve done intervals in them and they felt great – very responsive when running fast, just enough longitudinal stiffness for speed.

They also feel great on longer, slower runs, and for heel strikers or those who tend to have form breakdowns late in a race the heel cushion is ample. This is the kind of shoe that could be worn by a lot of different runners with very different styles and body types. I’d go so far as to say it’s a great starting shoe for a new runner – light, simple, and plenty of protection (I’m not a big believer in expensive, techy shoes with lots of stuff shoved into the sole). I’d rank it right up there with the Saucony Kinvara in terms of versatility.

If you can’t yet tell that I like this shoe, I’ll just say it flat-out: the New Balance 1400 v2 is everything a running shoe should be. I’m pretty sure it’ll be among my top 3 shoes this year, and it’s one that I highly recommend that you try!

The New Balance 1400 v2 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com.